Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Old Spanish Trail half dollar/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12 October 2019 [1].

Old Spanish Trail half dollar edit

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 15:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... yet another coin, probably the highlight in the saga of L.W. Hoffecker, whose efforts to get control of a commemorative coin in 1930 had sparked a presidential veto. Here he is successful, and even designed the coin, about which there are certainly mixed reviews.Wehwalt (talk) 15:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one Wehwalt, just a quickie, but would those seeking one coin of each commemorative design kind of translate as "collectors"? Unless I'm reading it wrong, they would appear to be much the same people surely  :) Nice article! take care! ——SerialNumber54129 16:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Most collectors aren't after one of each because that would be expensive. I think I own only two of the early commemoratives. Maybe three.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:11, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
H'mmm. Put it another way then, what makes one of those ultra-rich types who can afford to buy them all, not a collector? ——SerialNumber54129 12:39, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Those seeking one coin of each commemorative design are collectors, but have more expendable income and can afford to collect multiple commemoratives. - ZLEA T\C 13:15, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Anyhow, I've added the word "collectors" after "those".--Wehwalt (talk) 19:46, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Should "those" be removed? - ZLEA T\C 21:35, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't have to, but it can be. It doesn't change the meaning.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:05, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

  • Spot checks not done;
  • Searches for potential additional sources showed nothing missing;
  • Sources are all reliable and of the standard I would expect at FA;
  • Formatting: all good, except:
FNs 10 and 11 appear to point to the same reference
FN33, which has 310–11 when all the others are in the format 310–111.

That's all there is to look at. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:07, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Got these.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:47, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Prose review
Lead
  • "President Hoover in 1930 vetoed the Gadsden Purchase half dollar bill." Reads slightly bumpily. "In 1930 President Hoover vetoed the Gadsden Purchase half dollar bill" or President Hoover vetoed the Gadsden Purchase half dollar bill in 1930" seem smoother to me, but it's your call.
Done.
  • "pages of The Numismatist (a coin collecting journal)": would "pages of a coin collecting journal The Numismatist" be a smoother read?
I think it's better as is.
Background
  • I think the map can be scaled up a bit – it's a bit too small at the moment
Done.
  • Hoover's 1930 veto: any reason for it? (Even as a footnote?)
Explained.
  • "coin issue he would control in 1935": slightly pedantic, but would he lose control from 1936 onwards?
Seems to have been done.
Preparation
Both the above does.
Design
  • "... it.[20] but there are": is that meant to be a full top after "it", or a capital B?
Done.

That's it from me; I hope these help. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments. Sorry about being so slow.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:47, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose, and pass on sources. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:29, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

Support Comments from Moise edit

Hi Wehwalt, I hope you're well. I'm working my way through the article (second read-through) and will add comments below as I notice stuff:

  • Legislation: "The bill passed without recorded objection, after which Cochran got the Hudson, New York Sesquicentennial half dollar passed." This implies (I think) that the Hudson, New York Sesquicentennial half dollar was the second of the two coin bills discussed at the House, and that the Old Spanish Trail coin bill was the first. But it's a bit jarring because in the sentences leading up to this, I don't think there's any indication that the previous discussion had mainly been about the Old Spanish Trail coin? Moisejp (talk) 04:00, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Minor comment) "In the Senate, the bill was referred to the Committee on Banking and Currency." If you wanted to, you could clarify that this is talking about the Old Spanish Trail bill, as the Hudson, New York Sesquicentennial bill is the last one mentioned before this (though "bill" is not specifically stated for the Hudson coin in this most recent mention). But if you think it's way obvious, and would rather not, this one's no deal-breaker for me.
  • The lead says that Hoffecker "fixed on the travels of Spanish officer Álvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca" in choosing the coin to push for; "fixed on" is satisfying enough (even if no specific reason is given why he did so—likely such an explicit reason does not exist in the sources) to suggest that whether rationally or irrationally, he probably had his reasons. But in the main text, there's no "strong phrase" like "fixed on" to glue together the ideas, and I feel the reader is left more unsatisfied about wondering what prompted Hoffecker to choose this particular historical event. I'm saying maybe if you added a strong phrase like "fixed on" to the main text, it would be enough connect the ideas for this part. Moisejp (talk) 04:19, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that this review has been going slowly. I'll try to get back to it in the next few days. Thanks for your patience. Moisejp (talk) 23:17, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing my review:

  • "Hoffecker related that he had sought to hire one of two or three sculptors in the East, but each would take too long and wanted liberty to make changes. Senn was unemployed, and, by Hoffecker's account, he stood over the sculptor, who worked in Hoffecker's garage." I'm afraid I got a little confused in this part. It mentions wanting to, but not, hiring one of the sculptors in the east. Then it says Senn stood over the sculptor—which sculptor? (I don't think it's Lee Lawrie, mentioned earlier?) I also wasn't sure if "stood over" is supposed to have a literal or perhaps figurative meaning, and what the relevance of Senn being unemployed is. Apologies, I'm not trying to be difficult, but sincerely got confused in these couple of sentences. Moisejp (talk) 01:39, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cochran brought two commemorative coin bills, including the one for the Old Spanish Trail piece, to the House floor on April 3 as emergency measures, explaining to members dubious that the striking of half dollars could be urgent that they were needed for celebrations scheduled for that summer, and that the bills had been delayed due to the committee chairman's illness." This sentence seems unnecessarily long and complicated. Would you consider possibly breaking it up and simplifying it (especially the middle part)?

I think that's all my comments. I enjoyed reading the article. Moisejp (talk) 01:56, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad. Sorry to be slow. On Hoffecker standing over Senn, I'm basically quoting Hoffecker. Aside from that, I think everything is done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:35, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies from me too that this review has been going slowly. I hope to look at your changes this weekend if I can. Moisejp (talk) 03:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with the changes, and glad to support now. Thanks again for your patience. Moisejp (talk) 15:06, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No trouble, thank you for your review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:10, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley edit

Another first-rate addition to an important series of articles. After two perusals I can find nothing to complain about. The text is clear and highly readable; as far as one can judge it is comprehensive and balanced; the illustrations are what one would wish; and the article is widely, and evidently well, sourced. Meets the FA criteria in my view. Tim riley talk 12:04, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66 edit

  • a coin collecting journal Needs a hyphen
Not sure it does in AmEng.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's a compound adjective as coin is modifying collecting, not journal, so, yes, it needs a hyphen. It's not a Am/BritEng thing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:42, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rephrased.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:01, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You must really hate that hyphen to go to that phrasing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:09, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a fan of hyphenating "coin collecting" either. Besides, the new phrasing reads better in my opinion. - ZLEA T\C 00:33, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do readers need a link to coin collecting?
Added.
  • those seeking one coin of each commemorative design "collectors of US commemorative coins"
Not precisely as people can collect commemorative coins without really seeking one of each, which can get pricey. I've rephrased.
Thanks, I think that's everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Old_Spanish_Trail_half_dollar/archive1&oldid=920957814"